MILF

MILF washes hands off Kidapawan jail attack

Thursday, February 23, 2012

COTABATO CITY — The Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF) washes hands off the attack on the Kidapawan City Jail last Sunday morning.

MILF Civil Military Affairs Von Alhaq denied the allegations that members of the Bangsamoro Islamic Armed Forces (Biaf) attacked the jail around 9:30 a.m. Sunday to release one of the detainees, Datucan Samad, alias Kumander Lastikman.

It can be recalled that the MILF was also involved in the attack of the Cotabato Provincial Jail in 2009 to release their comrades who are considered to be high-risk detainees.

Lastikman is believed to be behind the deaths of 30 civilians in Pikit, North Cotabato last year.

His group is also behind the highway robbery and hold-up incidents in the Cotabato-Davao Highway.

The Mindanao problem is ultimately a POWER problem – the power of one group over another. It is a problem of colonization. The fact that there was a law called the Legislative Act 4197 or Quirino-Recto Colonization of Mindanao Act, which was enacted on 12 February 1935 is very telling. The Commonwealth considered the Act as a lasting solution to Mindanao colony. The law enabled a massive exodus of settlers from Luzon and Visayas to Mindanao, with complete government support.

Partly in response to the Act, on 18 March 1935, 120 Maranao datus signed a manifesto, known as the Dansalan Declaration, and submitted it to the US President. The datus opposed the annexation of Mindanao to Luzon and Visayas.

A year and a half later, Commonwealth President Quezon signed into law Commonwealth Act 141 which classified all Moro lands as PUBLIC LANDS, thus making all the Moros squatters in their own homeland.

Today, the social reality constructed by the Filipino leaders since the Commonwealth, supported by the vast resources of the government, has now been fairly entrenched such that the word Colonization or Occupation of Mindanao seems out of place.

The Philippine narrative that is the bedrock of the imagined Philippine nation goes something like this:

The Philippines is one country and until recently, the only Christian nation in Asia. It has minorities, who are also citizens of this nation-state. The citizens are called Filipinos. They belong to one race, one culture, one psychology, one destiny, one history. Those who do not think they should be a part of this nation-state have no choice because there is only one country, the Philippines. The fundamental law of the land is its Constitution.

The media constantly reinforces this narrative. In “Under the Crescent Moon: Rebellion in Mindanao”(Q.C.:2000), top journalists Vitug and Gloria says: “Mindanao was part of the Philippines ever since the Spanish colonizers came and created boundaries in what were formerly trading networks”

HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE

History is “the act of selecting, analyzing and writing about the past. It is something that is done, that is constructed.” (Davidson and Lytle 1982)

The grand historical narrative is this:

The Archipelago is nothing but a bunch of barangays ruled by datus. “Mother Spain” came to the Philippines and gave the natives Christianity and civilization – education, language, the arts, architecture and even cuisine.

For 350 years, the Spanish nurtured the people and protected them from the murderous raids of the Moros – the pirates

THE TERM FILIPINO

Throughout the Spanish rule in the Philippines, the term Filipino was reserved for pureblood Spaniards, differentiated only as peninsulares (those born in the Spanish Peninsula) and insulares (those born in the Islands). The Christianized natives were never called Filipinos. They were referred to as indios or naturales. Even the mestizos (half-breeds) were not called Filipinos.

In the latter part of the 19th century, Governor-General Clavecilla ordered all indios (except Manila’s local nobility, i.e., descendants of Rajah Suleiman and Lakandula) to adopt Spanish names in pain of punishment if they refused to do so. Thus, present-day Filipinos bear Spanish names. Having a Spanish name does not make one a Spaniard.

When the Aguinaldo government appropriated the term Filipino for the indios, the identification with the Spanish masters became complete. In one semantic stroke, the history of the Philippines became the history of the indios (the present-day Christian Filipinos) and not of the Spaniards (the original Filipinos).

This is a grave malady. By appropriating the name Filipino, the present-day Filipinos think that the Filipinos referred to in history indicate them and not the Spaniards. This makes them identify with the Spanish, forgetting that under Spain, their forefathers were virtual slaves – mandated to do forced labor and were considered eternal minors.

Leon Ma. Guerrero, one of the elites who constructed the “imaginary nation” called Filipino nation, had a hard time translating Rizal’s novel, Noli Me Tangere. In the novel, Rizal used the word Filipino to mean Spaniards in the Philippines which was incomprehensible to most readers in the 1950s who were brought up to believe that the term Filipino meant them, i.e. Christianized natives. Benedict Anderson (1994) wrote :

“…young Filipinos would at once see, in any straight translation from the Spanish, that they do not exist within the novel’s pages. Filipinas, of course appear, but they are exactly what today’s Filipinas are not: ‘pure-blood’ Spanish Creoles.”

Guerrero, in his attempt to fit the Noli into the elites’ “nation-state project”, effectively revised history. The Filipinos in Guerrero’s translation considered both Spain and Philippines as homes, worshiped European-looking deities, spoke foreign languages, alluded to Greco-Roman classical mythology and fell in love with Caucasian ladies. References to colonial abuse were rendered bland and ineffective. And since the modern-day Filipinos believe that they (or their forefathers) were the ones referred to in the book, it is but natural for them to imbibe the thoughts and beliefs of the Noli’s characters. In effect, Guerrero re-wrote the Noli. Jose Rizal must have turned in his grave when the translation was published and made required reading for Filipino students.

And so the confusion of the modern-day Filipinos’ identity continues. The historical narrative continues as such:

In 1896, Bonifacio and the Katipunan revolted against the Spanish. In 1898, with the assistance of Commodore Dewey, Aguinaldo defeated the Spaniards and proclaimed Independence. Soon after, the Philippine-American War erupted and by 1902, it was officially over. Philippines became an American territory.

New Filipino leaders – Quezon, Osmena, Roxas, etc. – emerged. America bestowed democracy to the Philippines. America pacified Mindanao. Quezon et al worked for Independence. America declared a Commonwealth and gave Filipinos self-government. World War II came and Filipinos fought side by side with Americans against Japanese. After WWII, America granted Philippine Independence. And the Philippines is now a democratic republican nation with a homogeneous people and culture, thanks to Mother America

In short, the Moros and Christian Filipinos were colonized by the Spaniards and Americans and they share the same colonial history. The only difference is that the Moros were mostly bandits and so had to be punished (Spanish “punitive expeditions”) every so often, as the grand narrative goes.

And since Philippine history books recounting events from 1521- 1886 were about the Spaniards in the Philippines including Philippine literature like Noli Me Tangere, the Filipinos identify with the Spaniards.

The Christianized Filipinos’ (or Indios’) historical experience with the Moros was fret with horrors. Caught between the Moros and the Spaniards, the Indios suffered terribly from both parties. Forced to side with the Spaniards, they bore the brunt of Moro retaliatory raids in their communities. And to ensure their cooperation against the Moros, the Spaniards demonized the Moros in their literature, church sermons and stage plays like the moro-moro where the Muslim is always the villain.

When America gave Moroland to the Filipinos in 1946, the Indios (now called Filipinos) found themselves, at least theoretically, masters of the Islands. The Colonization of Mindanao was pursued vigorously with slogans like “Mindanao, Land of Promise” to entice the Indios to settle in Mindanao. Finally, the Indios became colonizers.

Filipino leaders promoted the slogan, “Go South, Young Man!” imitating the slogan “Go West, Young Man” which the Americans used to promote the colonization of the Western United States which belonged to the American Indians. And to make the analogy even stonger, the Indios referred to the Moros as Tribes just like the Navajo or the Iroquois.

In constructing the “Filipino nation”, the Grand Narrative of the Christian Filipinos and the government is embodied in the “One-Nation Theory.”

One-Nation One-History Syndrome

The Sultanates of Sulu and Maguindanao were established ca. 1400’s. According to “official” Philippine history, the Philippines (Luzon, Visayas, Palawan and Mindanao) was discovered by Fernando Magallanes in 1521. However, historical accounts say that Mindanao and Palawan were already known to the rest of the world way before that time.

If one were to visit the Malacañang Museum, a guide would point out a 16th century map that he/she would describe as the oldest map that shows the Philippines. A closer look at it would reveal that the map indicates only Mindanao and Palawan. Luzon and Visayas were not yet “discovered”.

The official historical view claims that 350 years of Spanish rule in the Philippines included Moroland. Spanish attacks against the Moros were called “punitive expeditions against rebellions.” Moro victories over the Spanish were denied or ignored. Moro raids on the Christian natives were called pirate attacks.

This is what can be called “the one-nation one-history syndrome”. This syndrome propagates the myth that the present-day Philippines has always been one nation sharing one history. It is alleged that the only difference between the Moros and the Christianized natives (indios) was that the Moros continually resisted while the indios resisted only intermittently (Dagohoy Rebellion, Diego Silang rebellion, etc.)

There is a preponderance of evidence against this myth. While the Indios were under Spanish colonial rule, the Moro sultanates thrived. The Moros were considered sovereigns by European powers, including Spain, as proven by treaties between them. Even the US signed the Bates Treaty with Sulu thus proving that the Treaty of Paris was not sufficient or even valid in the case of Sulu. Primary sources abound in the archives not only in Manila but also in Madrid, London, and Amsterdam.

BANGSA MORO (Moro Nation)

In the late 1960s, the Moro Young Turks led by Abbas, Jr., Misuari et al, supported by their elders proposed another narrative: the Bangsa Moro nation as distinct from the Filipino nation.

This Bangsa Moro nation concept is steeped in history, with the Moros unconquered by colonizers and as great defenders of Islam.

Graeme Turner (1993) says that “implicit in every culture is a ‘theory of reality’ which motivates its ordering of that reality into good and bad, right and wrong, them and us, and so on.”(p.133) The belief system produced by this ‘theory of reality’ is called ideology.

Ideology and history are both social constructs. Turner says, “Ideology works to obscure the process of history so that it appears natural, a process we cannot control and which it seems churlish to question.” (Turner, Graeme (1993) Film as Social Practice London: Routledge)

A nation’s collective memory is complex and in continuous flux. “It is basically made up of stories: the myriad stories which people tell each other; and, more significantly, the mass mediated narratives of a nation’s ‘official’ history, told in books and other cultural artifacts like television and feature films.” (Ituralde 1995)

TWO SOCIAL CONSTRUCTS / NARRATIVES

In the Mindanao Conflict – two constructs are fighting – the “Filipino nation” construct as created by successive Philippine governments and the Bangsa Moro construct exemplified by the MNLF and MILF.

On the one hand, there is the “one-nation narrative” that asserts the indivisibility of the “Filipino nation”, proud of its Christian religion and Western heritage and identifies with the Spaniards of historical texts. This group believes in “democracy” defined as rule of the majority.

On the other hand is the Bangsa Moro narrative that gives prime importance to the Islamic religion and Moros’ historical fight against Westerners. Believers in this narrative hope to get back their former territory and freedom.

With two diverging social constructs, it would be very difficult to find a middle ground. A million dialogues will not accomplish anything if the premises of both groups are clearly divergent.

With number and over-all resources on its side, the Christian Filipino would not easily give in to any demands of the other party. The logical thing to do would be to convince the other party of the soundness of the “one-nation” principle and debunk the Bangsa Moro or Moro nation theory by emphasizing on the divisions of the Moro nation.

Appdurai (1996) says: “Through ‘print capitalism’ (Benedict Anderson 1991) and ‘electronic capitalism’ such as films and TV (Warner 1992, Lee 1993), citizens imagine themselves to belong to a national society. The modern nation-state in this view grows less out of natural facts – such as language, blood, soil and race – and more out of a quintessential cultural product, a product of the collective imagination.” With all resources at its command, the government can simply reinvigorate its construction of the reality of “One Filipino nation”.

The dominant group will insure that the received reality prevents an examination of the non-viability of present situation (one-nation principle).

The Memorandum of Agreement on Ancestral Domain (MOA-AD) between the Government of the Philippines (GPH) and the MILF was junked and the latest MILF-GPH talks were stalled because the dominant group refuses to consider that the status quo is not viable. In the Filipino grand narrative, there is only One Constitution for ALL citizens just as there is one “national language, one national anthem, one national dress, etc.” There is only one government, one security force, etc.

While the “Filipino nation” has been continually constructed since the Commonwealth, the “Moro Nation” concept came up only in the late 1960s. And because of lack of mass media and other resources, such concept has not yet taken root as much as the Filipino nation.

Also, for centuries, the Moro groups have been keenly aware of their own history individually – Sultanates of Sulu, Maguindanao and Buayan and the Pat a Pangampong ko Ranao. These were virtual nation-states and acted independently of fellow Moro states.Thus, many Moros are still not comfortable with the notion of one Moro nation.

REMEDY:

Both sides must examine their theories, assumptions, axioms, etc

History is a construct. History is used as the “memory” of another socially and culturally constructed concept, the nation. But what is constructed can be re-constructed. For the Filipino nation to find its Identity and be at peace with the Moros, it is high time that it’s “memory” be re-investigated. Philippine history does not need re-construction. It merely needs re-discovery.

Using new approaches like microhistory, forgetting the grand narratives and keeping an open mind, Moros and Indios might find that they have many commonalities and that in many ways, they do have a shared history and be better off with a shared future, where power is equitably distributed and shared.

We don’t have to belong to One Nation. But we can belong to One State. There can be MANY NATIONS in ONE STATE. There can be many nations in a Bangsa Moro (Moro Nation) and many more in the Filipino nation just as there are many nations in a British or German nation and much more in a European Nation.

The dissolution of the USSR, Yugoslavia and other nation-states born after WWII as well as the many problems experienced by many other nation-states like Thailand, Myanmar, Iraq, Philippines, the Middle Eastern countries, etc. means that the “nation-state” project of the Western world has failed. A new system may be the way of the future: nations-state like the European Union – many nations in one state.

RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE YOUNG MOROS / INDIOS:

–Study history – Moro, Filipino, Islamic, World history

–Practice critical thinking – do not believe books or teachers unless their arguments are backed by proofs – documents and logic.

The Historical Conservation Society is an elite group of Filipinos and foreigners interested in Philippine history. They come from the same social stratum and generally have the same biases and prejudices. They form a close-knit interpretive community. Mr. Felix had absolutely no qualms about sharing his true feelings about the Moros and Islam.

But in the society at large, most people do not want to show their biases, not in this politically correct world. However, a survey asking innocuous questions might draw some inferences on the ignorance or non-awareness of people about something. And ignorance is usually the cause of prejudices.

A questionnaire was given to some 17 young students of the University of the Philippines (16 – 21 years old). 11 of them come from the Tagalog tribe, 2 are Visayans and the rest come from non-Tagalog areas of Luzon. The aim of the questionnaire was to gauge their awareness/non-awareness of things Moro/Muslim.

ANALYSIS OF RESULTS

The Questionnaire was a multiple choice type so it would be easier to spot the more politically correct answer. Only 4 out of 17 answered that a Moro is a Muslim because the other choice – a Moro is a Muslim indigenous to Mindanao – looks and sounds the better answer. If no answers were provided, most would probably say that a Moro is a Muslim. Nevertheless, in spite of the presence of the correct answer, 23% still chose the Moro is a Muslim answer. Like Mr. Felix, they believe that Moros and Muslims are actually synonymous and interchangeable.

(There is confusion among the general Philippine populace on the difference between a Muslim and a Moro. A Muslim is a follower of the Islamic religion while a Moro is indigenous to Mindanao. The Moro definition is not historically correct. The Spaniards used to call all Muslims Moros, from the Spanish Moors to the Muslim Malays and Indonesians.)

Yet even those who answered ‘the Moro is a Muslim indigenous to Mindanao’ thought that Yakans and Samals are Lumads. Actually, most of them have no idea what or who the Yakans and Samals are. Some Yakans and most Badjaos are non-Muslims but all are Moros.

A majority (59%) believes that the Moros do not like to be called Moros. It does not seem apparent to them that the M in MNLF and MILF stand for Moro and not Muslim.

Practically every schoolchild is taught that Rajah Soliman was the last King of Manila. Why then do many Filipinos think that Soliman was either Christian or pagan? His very name is Islamic – Suleiman not Solomon — and the reason he fought the Spanish was for Freedom and Islam. In this survey, 40% think that Soliman was non-Muslim. Does this mean that teachers and/or textbooks do not say that Soliman or Lakan-Dula were Muslims?

Around 65% think that the Abu Sayyaf Group is not just a kidnap-for ransom gang or a bunch of criminals but is a {‘legitimate”) separatist Moro rebel group.

Most of the respondents have no Moro friends while some had Moro friends before. From their comments and answers, one can conclude that they really do not know much about the Moros, which is really the crux of the problem.

The collective memory against the Moros (whether ‘foreign Moros’ or local Moros) as immortalized in zarzuelas and moro-moro; the depiction of Moros as uncivilized in history books by Spanish, American and Filipino writers; the constant wars against the Moros waged by various Philippine administrations – all these create huge amounts of biases and prejudices.

And this can only be remedied if there is an awareness of the Moro culture and history in the Philippine experience. To paraphrase Ben Jonson, “Peace hath an enemy, its name is Ignorance.”

Surveys, Part II

Sultan Qudarat’s speech

In order to further test hermeneutic principles, we asked a sample of students to read the speech delivered by the Maguindanaon Sultan Qudarat to the M’ranaos in 1639. In contrast to the Spanish texts, this speech is very positive for the Moros. It shows that the Sultan is quite clear on the issues at hand; i.e., liberty or subjugation by the Castillans.

If it is true that the text itself has a life of its own, and directly communicates with the reader, as alleged by hermeneutics, then this speech will have positive effects on its readers. The subject readers are all University of the Philippines (UP) students, quite young (18 / 19 years old)

ANALYSIS OF RESULTS

The results of this small survey showed that a positive document could have positive effects on the readers. The readers hardly knew Qudarat, but after reading his speech, they seemed to have a more positive view of the Moros (brave warriors, proud heritage, etc.) The speech also clarified to them that the Moros’ enemies were the Spaniards and not the Indios or Tagalogs or Visayans.

Most of the respondents were 18-year olds which mean that they were not yet born during the MNLF wars of the 70s or even the signing of the Tripoli Agreement. They were even too young when Ramos signed the Jakarta Peace Agreement with Nur Misuari. Their concept of the Moro Problem seems to be centered on the Abu Sayyaf Group. Although the “all-out war” policy of the Estrada government was directed more against the MILF, these young students do not seem to know the difference between the Abu Sayyaf and the MILF since the media do not really bother to indicate such difference.

From the results of this survey, one can conclude that the students of today come from a different interpretive community as the generation of Mr. Felix, Jr. The college students of today are ignorant of Moro history and even the existence of a Moro Problem. They were not born yet during the MNLF wars of the 1970s. But this ignorance can be a positive thing. Unlike the generation of Mr. Felix, these young people do not have deep suspicion or even hatred against the Moros.

The Siege of Palumpong

To test the above statements, we asked another group of UP students to read the text of the Siege of Palumpong and answer a questionnaire. The rationale behind this survey is to test whether the old generation of Mr. Felix shares the same sentiments as the young generation of today’s college students.

ANALYSIS OF RESULTS

Unlike Mr. Felix, the respondents thought that the text was biased and exaggerated. Almost half thought that it was not even factual. One respondent even gave an additional comment that it was “too miraculous.”However, even if they felt that the text was biased and exaggerated, it appeared that they were affected by it. In the question on what they think of the Moros, the Sultan Qudarat speech respondents answered positively. This time, the respondents answered negatively. A very small portion (14%) gave positive remarks. Some admitted that the text influenced them.

Majority thought negatively of the authors because they did not believe the truthfulness of the article. They seemed to take it against the authors for writing an obviously exaggerated account (to their minds) that they considered almost like an insult to their intelligence. The respondents were all UP students. Would it have made a difference if the respondents were students of say, Ateneo, which is run by the Jesuits or even Miriam College, a neighboring Catholic school?

All of them answered that the Spanish were the enemies of the Moros in 1754. One respondent reiterated her answer in the Comment section but added that she will have to check it up. It is important that the Filipinos realize that the Moros’ enemies then were the Spaniards and not the Christianized natives, who were themselves subjugated by the Spaniards.

A majority thinks that there is no such thing as a Moro Problem while the others think that the Moro Problem is just the Abu Sayyaf problem. Some believe that the problem lies in some discriminatory practices of the Christians towards the Moros. Again, the ignorance of the students about the Moro Issue is quite surprising. But again, such ignorance can be a positive factor.

Most proposed Peace Talks and Better Understanding in order to solve the problem. Proposals to give the Moros independence would have been significant if the respondents knew what the Problem was all about. However, those who proposed to give the Moros what they want also answered that they didn’t know much about the Moro Issue.

As in the Qudarat speech survey, most respondents did not agree with the all-out war approach. Those who agreed seemed to have the idea that the all-out war was only waged against the Abu Sayyaf.

The Palumpong survey indicated that a) the younger generation do not share the same perception as the generation of Mr. Felix, and b) a 200-plus year old text can still affect readers as indicated by the increased number of negative descriptions of what a Moro is as well as the negative descriptions of the authors, namely, the Jesuits and c) a negative document can still have negative effects (image of the Moros) even if the readers do not fully believe the document’s truthfulness. The Palumpong survey also confirms the Qudarat speech findings that a) the students are hardly aware of the Moro Problem, b) the students equate the Moro Problem with the Abu Sayyaf kidnappings and c) the younger generation prefers Peace Talks to “all-out war.”

CONCLUSION:

Hermeneutics remind us that the prejudices and biases of the perceiver must always be taken into account. From Fisher’s reader-response theory, we see that texts get their meaning from the reader. Mr. Felix’s “interpretation” of the 1755 texts is a case in point. It can be concluded that Mr. Felix and his colleagues at the Historical Conservation Society belong to the same interpretive community. The fact that the members of that Society comprise the elites of the larger Philippine society is ominous for the Moros, who are in the minority and who appear to be the object of hatred of Mr. Felix’s group.

The Christian majority, specially the Christian settlers in Mindanao, decries the fact that the Moros tend to always refer to the historical past. The Christians maintain that any dialogue between the Moros and Indios must necessarily be grounded in present-day realities. But Mr. Felix’s reaction to the 1755 texts clearly shows that Christians, as exemplified by Mr. Felix, are very much affected by the past. As the great American President John Quincy Adams once declared, “Who we are is who we were.”

The two surveys also show that centuries-old texts can and do influence today’s readers. Considering that most history (text)books in the Philippines have very disparaging accounts of the Moro, and present mass media coverage are very biased against the Moros, tearing away prejudices and biases would be an Herculean task.

The surveys of a small sampling of students do not give encouragement either. Most of them admit ignorance of Moros / Muslims and their ways. They get their impressions of Moros mostly from the mass media. But as Littlejohn says “if literary texts always get their meaning from the reader, media depictions must also derive meaning from the interpretive community.”(Littlejohn, p.210)

Since the mass media derive meaning from the interpretive community, then the plight of the Moros would certainly go for the worse. The mass media organizations are owned by non-Moros. Unlike the Chinese and the Iglesia ni Cristo, the Moros do not own any mass media organization. They have absolutely no influence in the mass media as no mass media outfit targets them as the audience.

In hermeneutics, the negatives can be used positively. The ignorance of the younger generation about the Moros can be regarded positively. Since this generation is not full of mental baggage about the Moros, i.e., there is much less prejudice and bias against the Moros, they can be made to have a better understanding of Moro history, culture and traditions so that in the future, when the leaders will come from this generation, they can help promote a lasting peace with the Moros.

The survey respondents (3 samplings) are young university undergraduate students. The fact that they don’t know much about the Moro Problem may indicate that the general population may also not know much about the Moro Problem. If UP students are ignorant of the real causes of the Moro Problem, could we expect the average Filipino to be better informed? Perhaps it is actually ignorance of the real causes of the problem that is the stumbling block to its eventual solution. (It is the habit of the government never to admit publicly its ignorance on any subject.)

Combating ignorance is a long process. It would need an overhaul of educational materials about the Moros as well as better portrayal of Moros in the mass media. And most importantly, there must be a strong resolve by the government to truly help the Moros by empowering them; i.e., appointing qualified and competent Moros (not only those subservient to them) to high government posts, giving educational and economic opportunities to Moros (including those who are not Malacanang lackeys), refraining from interference in local politics (rigging the elections), and giving sufficient budget (actually not technically) to local government units in the Moro region.

In the 1970s, at the height of the fighting, the government spent millions of dollars (one million dollars a day according to some reports) and lost at least 50,000 lives including thousands of young Filipino soldiers. Both sides claim victory in the MNLF war, which ended because of Marcos’s urgent plea to Libya’s Qadaffi to call for a Ceasefire Agreement which eventually led to the Tripoli Agreement.

The MILF fight has been costing the country quite a sum, too, especially Mr. Estrada’s “all-out war” campaign. Mr. Estrada declared a smashing victory over the MILF, which made his popularity rise sky-high. Yet it appears that MILF is still as strong as ever. Mr. Estrada also declared complete victory over the Abu Sayyaf Group. But as everybody knows, it’s still business-as-usual for the Group.

The Abu Sayyaf, which the government equates with the Moro Problem, is creating black propaganda not only for the Moro Cause but also for the Philippine government. Tourism and Business in Mindanao have suffered greatly. The only thriving industry there is the kidnapping industry run by the Abu Sayyaf Group whose members, according to the grapevine, are mere “industrial partners” whose real financiers (non-Moros) are in the higher echelons of government.

From the 15th century, the Moros were masters of their destinies while the Indios were a subjugated people under the Spanish. It was only in the 20th century when the Moros finally accepted foreign (American) domination in exchange for the right to practice their religion and way of life. Later, they agreed to be part of a Republic to be shared with the Indios, now called Filipinos. Some thirty years after their experiment with co-habitation with Filipinos in a republican setting, the Moros rose again, only to be foiled by Marcos’s diplomatic and political genius.

The new century / millennium started with an American War Against Terrorism, which many Muslims the world over see as the War against Islam. (The lapsus lingue of US President Bush when he declared a “Crusade” against his enemies did not escape the Muslims’ attention.) The presence of US Marines in Mindanao purportedly to help the Philippine Army fight “terrorists” makes the prospect of a renewed Moro War quite bright.

Recently, the GRP signed a peace agreement with the MILF in Kuala Lumpur. At the same time, the Philippine government signed another agreement with members of the Malaysian and Indonesian governments labeling the MILF as a “terrorist” organization. No less than the Philippine Vice President and concurrent

Foreign Affairs Secretary, Teofisto Guingona, expressed surprise at such equivocation.It appears that the present Philippine administration is still deciding whether to pursue peace or wage war against the MILF. There is also equivocation with regards to MNLF chief Nur Miuari. Will he be tried in Philippine courts like a common criminal or be sent to exile?

America has a war economy. Its economy will only expand during wartime, as it did during the two world wars. The Philippines will be devastated if another war in the magnitude of the 1970s MNLF war will erupt.But there is no need for war. Peace is always the better alternative. Understanding the issues by re-reading and re-interpreting Moro and Filipino history and understanding the protagonists’ culture, traditions, biases and prejudices may be the key to eventual peace in the country.

Filipinos, in whatever capacity, should not leave the solution to the government alone. Everyone should give its contribution to the solution. Spending billions of pesos on the military will simply create more poverty, more gaping mouths with no food to eat, more women and men having to prostitute themselves here and abroad just to earn a living, more workers forced to separate with kith and kin to work abroad and suffer so much indignities.

Peace in Mindanao does not necessarily mean capitulation of one side to the other. Peace in Mindanao means peace for the whole country. It means less military spending, more money for more useful purposes, more foreign and local investments which would mean more jobs and more money to spend.

From these little surveys and Mr. Felix’s interpretation of a text written some 250 years ago, we saw that texts can have positive and negative effects. The surveys also showed the ignorance of the Indios about the Moro Issue. An avenue for Peace that is opened for us is the Information path. Moro history (Majul’s Muslims in the Philippines book can be the start) should be taught in schools and universities with special emphasis on incidents portraying Moro-Indio cooperation such as the time when Moro datus sealed a pact with Bohol Indio leaders against the Spanish conquistadors. Islamic history should also be studied, as part of World History, without its distortions. It must be emphasized too that during the Crusades when Europeans invaded Palestine and the Middle East in the name of Christianity, the Christian Arabs fought side by side with their Muslim brethren against the foreign invaders. In the same vein, Lapu-Lapu (allegedly a pagan), Rajah Humabon (allegedly a Christianized indio) and Rajah Suleiman (a Moro) all fought the Spanish/European invaders.

The government should promote the culture and interests of the Moros through films and TV programs as well as in other media like the periodicals and the Web. Only through a better understanding of the Moros would the Indios be inclined to make real and sincere peace with them.

The surveys have proved that texts do have an impact on its readers. If the government and the mass media will continue producing texts of all kinds that depict the Moros in a bad light, then no peace can come to Mindanao. (end)

In the Philippine context, studying the Muslim-Christian (or Moro-Indio) communication relationship within the framework of hermeneutic phenomenology may give significant clues to the solution of the so-called Moro Problem.

HISTORICAL INTEPRETATION

For example, one of the most glaring differences between the Moros and the Filipino majority (Indios) is their view of history. For the Filipino majority, Philippine history began in 1521 with the “discovery of the Philippines” by Ferdinand Magellan and the start of Christianity in the country with the conversion of Rajah Humabon and his family. The Filipinos of today believe that history books recount Filipino history from that time on.

In the book “Under the Crescent Moon: Rebellion in Mindanao” (Q.C.:2000, 327 pp.), two journalists who some now consider as “experts” in the Moro issue by virtue of this book, pronounced that “Mindanao was part of the Philippines ever since the Spanish colonizers came and created boundaries in what were formerly trading networks.” Many Filipinos of today even believe that the nation-state called Philippines actually existed from that time (1521) onwards. The myth of an enduring nation-state called the Philippines with Christian, Muslim and pagan inhabitants ruled by Spain for 350 years and America for 50 years is being constantly rekindled by all forms of media.

It would indeed be a shock for many Filipinos to learn that for 350 years, the word Filipino actually was reserved for Spaniards in the Philippines. And that their grandparents and great-grandparents were not Filipinos but “naturales”, “indios” or “mestizos”. A close reading of so-called Philippine history would reveal that it is a chronology of events affecting primarily Spaniards in the Philippines (i.e., Filipinos). The present-day Filipinos were mentioned, if ever, only tangentially. The Moros actually occupy more space, as they were the feared and hated enemies of the Spaniards in the Philippines (i.e., Filipinos).

On the other hand, a look at Moro history through various historical documents would reveal that the Moros were sovereign nations and they only interacted with European powers and other neighboring Muslim states. The Moros never considered the Indios (the present-day Filipinos) as sovereign people. The Moros never interacted with them officially and diplomatically. The Moros considered the Indios as natives who have accepted Christianity and became practically slaves of the Spanish. They were therefore considered fair game for the slave trade. In fact up to this day, among some Moros, the word Filipino is synonymous to Christian or slave.

As if in revenge, the Philippine post-colonial government had constructed a mythical history. Philippine history books made “historically important” the various isolated even personal Indio “uprising’s” against the Spanish. According to this version of history, the Moros were the unruly Muslim inhabitants in Mindanao who were dealt with “punitive expeditions” from Manila every now and then. And the Philippines is glorified as the “only Christian nation in Asia.”

Philippine history books do not mention, for example, what happened to the companions of Magellan after he was killed by Lapu-Lapu. Philippine history books do not mention that Rajah Humabon, whom the present-day Filipinos celebrate as the first “Filipino” Christian king, invited the Spanish/European survivors of Magellan’s forces and massacred all but one of them. Humabon was a Christian for only a day or two.

Strictly speaking, Philippine history started in earnest only in 1896 with the Katipunan Revolt or at the earliest, in the martyrdom of the three Spanish priests, Fathers Gomez, Burgos and Zamora, who fought for the rights of Filipino clerics. Before this, Philippine history is really history of Spaniards in the Philippines* except for the sporadic and isolated “revolts” of the Indios all throughout the Colonial Period.

On the other hand, Moro history is partially or completely ignored by Philippine historians. Even in schools and universities, Moro history is not studied nor given any importance. But the Moros have a long memory. History is embedded in their culture. Royal families take great care in documenting their “salsilah” or family genealogies, which are by themselves, historical documents.

The Christian settlers in Mindanao criticize the Moros for their constant harping on the historical past. These settlers are proud that they do not care about the past but instead look to the future. (Jubair: 1997)But according to philosophical hermeneutics, “history is not separated from the present. We are always simultaneously part of the past, in the present, and anticipating the future. In other words, the past operates on us now in the present, and affects our conception of what is yet to come. At the same time, our present notions of reality affect how we view the past.”(Littlejohn, p.204)

Moro leaders and intellectuals maintain that if the Philippine government truly wants to solve the so-called Moro Problem, it must exert an honest-to-goodness effort to understand the feelings, sentiments, biases, ideals, prejudices, customs, traditions and historical experience of the Bangsa Moro as enunciated or articulated by the Moros themselves.

Muslim Filipino historian Cesar Adib Majul, former dean of the UP College of Arts and Sciences, lamented that “History books in the Philippines tend to lay emphasis on events in other islands and glorify national heroes from such places, as if the history of the Philippines is only that of people who had been conquered while the history of the unconquered ones do not merit a share in the history of the Philippines.” (Majul: 1973)It is indeed unfortunate that there are no Moro historians although some Moros are now starting to research and write about Moro history. Dean Majul is a Muslim of Arab and (Christian) Filipino parentage. Although he is a Muslim Filipino, he is not a Moro. He later migrated to the US.

Historians know that there is a “need of imaginative understanding for the minds of the people with whom he (the historian) is dealing, for the thought behind their acts.” (Carr:1961, p.26) This principle is important to remember because as the historian is faced with a sea full of “facts”, “by and large, the historian will get the kind of facts he wants.” (Carr, p.26) Moro history as written by the Moros’ traditional enemies – the Spanish, the Americans and the Indios-Filipinos – cannot possibly have even the “most elementary measure of imaginative understanding.” In his Cambridge lectures, Edward Hallett Carr concluded that “History cannot be written unless the historian can achieve some kind of contact with the mind of those about whom he is writing.” (Carr, p.27)

The long history of the Moro-Spanish wars had lasting effects on the collective memory of the Indios. For almost 350 years, the Indios were helpless natives “caught between the Spaniards, who were the masters of the land and the Moros, who were the masters of the seas. ” (Dery 1997) When the Americans came, the idea that “a good Moro is a dead Moro” was given renewed currency. The Moros were usually referred to as “uncivilized”, “savages” or “barbarians” by the Americans.

To pretend that the modern-day Filipinos (now supposedly composed of Indios, Moros and pagans) is a homogeneous nation with one history and one destiny and that the present conflict in the South is simply due to some disgruntled Moro bandits will not solve the problem and may even exacerbate it.

Communication Theoretical Apprcahes

As Gadamer pointed out, the prejudices of each party must be acknowledged and transformed into a positive force. Both parties to the conflict must acknowledge the fact that they do not like each other and that such dislike had already cost both sides tens of thousands of lives and millions of dollars since the 1970’s.Hermeneutics must necessarily come into play if one were serious in solving the “communication gap” between the Muslim and Christian Filipino communities. There must be a real effort in cultural interpretation.The Moro problem is even exacerbated by the textual interpretation of both groups to important documents like the Philippine Constitution and the Tripoli Agreement.

Many people in the government and the academe try to view the Moro Problem within the framework of social constructionist communication theories. The government constructs an image of a homogenized “Filipino” culture or nation through its schools, government agencies and the mass media. This “Filipino” nation has a “national hero”, a national flower”, a “national fruit”, etc. of which every Filipino citizen is supposed to be proud of. (Interestingly, all these “national” things seem to come from the Tagalog region.)

Some academics use Marxist critical theories in analyzing the Moro Issue. The Moro issue is argued as one of the results of Spanish colonialism and American imperialism. But some Moro intellectuals believe that Marxist postcolonial discourses can be misleading because the Moros are still under colonial rule; i.e., Filipino (Indio) colonial rule. It is absolutely useless to blame the Americans or multinationals or globalization for the plight of the Moros, as what the leftists are wont to do. If there’s anyone to blame, it is the current colonial power, i.e., the Filipino government. The MNLF, MILF, BMLO and other Moro groups have petitioned the United Nations and the OIC to resolve that the Bangsa Moro nation be de-colonized.

Today’s Filipino historians, writers, or intellectuals do not mention the fact that the great Filipino nationalist himself, Claro M. Recto, authored the bill called “Colonization of Mindanao Act.”

Critical studies tend to exacerbate social conditions. And since critical studies are focused on power, violence usually results in societies they (the theorists and their studies) are observing (Krippendorf 1989).Hermeneutic phenomenology or philosophical hermeneutics could be the framework needed to help solve this socio-political problem. Using critical theories, which focus on ideology and power, might simply aggravate the problem. As Paul Ricoeur (1981) noted:

“what is at stake can be expressed in terms of an alternative: either a hermeneutical or a critical consciousness…In contrast with the positive assessment of hermeneutics, the theory of ideology adopts a suspicious approach, seeing tradition as merely the systematically distorted expression of communication under unacknowledged conditions of violence.”

Text Interpretation

Hermeneutics say that “an explication of a text occurs only after a prior understanding of it, yet that prior understanding is justified by the careful explication it allows. In other words, before we can go about discussing and analyzing a text, we must have a global conception of its meaning.” (Dudley: 1984, p.97)

The problem lies in the interpreter’s prior conceptions. A reader necessarily has his biases and prejudices about the subject he reads. His perception of the text will have to coincide with his previously held beliefs.As Andrew pointed out, “new hermeneutics…rest on a modernist concern about the relativity of judgment that affects all disciplines…. There is no longer a single notion of seeing, rather there are modes of seeing…” (Dudley, p.173)

The Muslim-Christian or more precisely, the Moro-Indio conflict is never ending because the biases and prejudices of both sides are not clearly expressed in a “no holds barred” dialogue. The dialogues between the Philippine government (called GRP for Government of the Republic of the Philippines) and the Moro armed groups (either the MNLF or MILF) are characterized by diplomacy, tact, duplicity, and deviousness.Ambassador Pacifico Castro, member of the Philippine Panel in the Tripoli talks in 1976, declared that because of his expertise in the French language, he was able to make the official French version of the Tripoli Agreement very advantageous to the GRP.

In the example below, two articles written in 1755 had a tremendous impact on a particular reader 236 years later. The English translations of the two texts are titled “The Siege of Palumpong” and “The Battle of Iligan.” The Society of Jesus printed the original Spanish texts in 1755 in Manila. The English translation by Alfonso Felix, Jr. was printed in Quezon City in 1991.

As its subtitle indicates, the Palumpong article was a “report of the valiant defense put up by the Visayan natives of the town of Palumpong in the Island of Leyte of the Province of Catbalogan in the Philippines against the Muslim attack carried by the Ilanons (sic) and the Maranaos in the month of June 1754.” On the other hand, the Iligan article was a “summary of the victories that to the great glory of God and to the Luster and Honor of the Royal Catholic Arms of His Majesty in defense of the Christian communities and Islands of the Visayas were achieved against the Muslim enemies by the armada detached to the fortress of Iligan which is on the shores of the Island of Mindanao in the year 1754.”

It must be noted that the priests, in this case, the Jesuits, printed the texts. During the Moro-Spanish wars, the priests led the fight against the Moros. The priest was responsible for building the town’s fort, providing ammunition and cannons and commanding the “army”. He appointed all officers and men of the militia, guards and sentinels. Consequently, the friars were the Moros’ prime targets. They were decapitated, captured and generally ill-treated. The friar’s ransom went no less than 1,000 pesos and even went as high as 10,000 pesos (Dery, 1997, p.64). It can then be safely assumed that the texts were not objectively written. On the contrary, the texts most probably were propaganda materials used by the friars to lift the morale of the Christian natives, whom they called “naturales”.

Perception of a turn-of-the 20th century gentleman on a 230-year old text.

In 1991, Mr. Alfonso Felix, Jr. was the President of the Historical Conservation Society. The members of the Society at that time included Alejandro Melchor, Jesus Lazatin, Antonio Araneta, Jr., Enrique Syquia, Ernesto Aboitiz, Feliciano Belmonte, Jr., Antonio Concepcion, Francisco Elizalde, O.D. Corpuz, etc. – a veritable Who’s Who among the Filipino elites. Mr. Felix obtained copies of the documents from the Biblioteca Nacional de Madrid and proudly reported it to the Society.

In his Report and Acknowledgement speech of Aug. 28, 1991 in Manila, he minced no words. His prejudices and biases against the Moros and Muslims, in general, knew no bounds.

About Islam, he said: “…there seems to be in Islam something that pushes its adherents to a delight in the pain of others. The names of Genghis Khan and Tamerlaine are too well-known to need further comment.”His hatred for Muslims is evident. He wrote: “Let us take the case of Salman Rushdie whom the Holy Ayatollah condemned to death and who is now living in hiding. Unfortunately, the British have gone soft. If they had made it clear to the Iranians that the death of Salman Rushdie would result in the destruction of Teheran, the Iranians would think twice before inflicting their religion on civilized countries.”

He called Moros names like “devils in human form” or citizens “of the Republic of Mad Dogs” or “reptiles”. He obviously believed that the Moro Wars are not yet over. And his recommendation: “I do not think Christian Filipinos are afraid of Moros. A modern army equipped with the weapons of today and above all with the will to use them will soon cause the Moros to reconsider. When the Italians used poison gas in Ethiopia in 1935 many Ethiopians were exterminated and the liberals of the world found themselves in tears. I do not find poison gas used against Ethiopians deplorable.”

He even counseled the then President Aquino thus: “I invite our President, Her Excellency Da. Corazon Cojuangco vda. de Aquino to reflect on my words for I feel I am expressing with these words the opinion of the majority of Filipino peasants and Filipino soldiers.”

Felix’s reaction in the context of hermeneutic theories

Paul Ricoeur, like Gadamer, believes that the reader and the text share an intimate relationship. In fact, “the text can speak to and change the interpreter.”(Littlejohn:1979, p.209) Ricoeur calls this process appropriation, i.e., a reader who agrees with the messages of the text, appropriates the ideas of the text as his very own.

From the above example, it is patently clear that the 1755 texts and Mr. Felix had an “intimate interaction.” Although 216 years separate the text and the reader (Mr. Felix), the reader appropriated the meaning of the texts. Mr. Felix was so worked up by the messages of the text such that he ended up delivering a very emotional address to the Historical Conservation Society.

Mr. Felix was obviously a rich and intelligent Filipino. He spoke Spanish fluently and presumably was well-read and well-traveled. Presumably, he was well respected by the society at large. He was after all, the head of the Historical Conservation Society as well as a friend of foreign dignitaries. Yet his speech could rank as one of the most bigoted speeches of the century. Was he not afraid of ridicule from his colleagues in the Historical Society? Apparently, he knew them and he knew that all of them shared the same prejudices. Perhaps the others just did not dare express them publicly.

Stanley Fish, another theorist who uses the hermeneutic circle, maintains, “readers are members of interpretive communities, groups that interact with one another, construct common realities and meanings and employ those in their readings.”(Littlejohn, p.209) The world may be shocked at Mr. Felix’s speech, but Mr. Felix very well knew that he and his audience belonged to the same interpretive community and therefore the meanings he derived from the old Spanish text would be shared by everyone in his Society.

Stanley Fish’s reader-response theory does not ask, “What does a text mean?” but “What does a text do?” In this example, the 1755 Spanish texts prompted the President of an historical society in 1991 to deliver and publish a scathing attack on Islam, the Moros and the Muslims.

Mr. Felix also proved the hermeneutic belief that “history is not separated from the present. We are always simultaneously part of the past, in the present, and anticipating the future…” Although the texts were hundreds of years old and that the present political reality is so very different from the one depicted in the texts, Mr.Felix’s reaction was still as if the Past is the Present. Although the Moro Wars between the Moros and the Spanish were over a long time ago, he called on the Philippine President, addressing her with the Spanish honorific Doña, to wage war against the Moros.